Tunisia Since the Arab Conquest: The Saga of a Westernized Muslim State

By Jacob Abadi

This comprehensive history of Tunisia covers an essential period in the country's development, from the Arab conquest of the 7th century to the Jasmine Revolution and the fall of Ben Ali's regime in 2010. The book describes the evolution of the Tunisian state, its place in the Mediterranean basin, and its contacts with the civilizations of that region. Beginning with the conquest of AD 648-669, it analyzes the crucial events that shaped the country's history in the dynastic age. The book then goes on to discuss the impact of the Ottoman conquest, as well as the impact of the European competition in the Mediterranean, on the development of the Tunisian state. Tunisia since the Arab Conquest provides a thorough coverage of the French conquest and the French Protectorate, and their influence on the country's development. It discusses Franco-Tunisian relations in a vivid manner and explores the impact of the first and second World Wars on the country. The book then examines the Tunisian nationalist movement and the country's struggle for independence, assessing the main personalities who played a role in that movement. Tunisia's relations with France and the methods by which the country obtained its independence are discussed in great detail. The narrative continues with an analysis of the political, social, economic, and cultural developments in Tunisia since its independence, including an in-depth analysis of the country's achievements and failures under the regimes of Habib Bourguiba and Ben Ali. Based on primary and secondary sources in Arabic, French, Italian, Hebrew, and English, this book provides the reader with a comprehensive history of the country. It will be essential reading for students and academics who wish to understand the formative years of the Tunisian state, as well as the political developments which took place after its independence.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Ithaca Press
• Release date: Jul 1, 2022
• ISBN: 9780863724374

Book preview

Introduction

Among the countries of the North African continent, Tunisia stands out as the most unique. The country’s geographical location at the heart of the Mediterranean, astride major trade routes connecting Africa with Europe and the Middle East, enhanced its importance throughout the centuries. Since time immemorial the country had been at the centre of European and Middle Eastern affairs, and its commercial and strategic value was a source of both strength and weakness. Control over the country was the objective of numerous civilizations that sought to dominate the Mediterranean. During the classical age it was the location of the Punic Wars, which ended with Rome’s destruction of Carthage. Yet even that calamity did not bring an end to its influence. The country began playing an important role soon after Christianity began spreading throughout the Roman Empire and the Mediterranean basin. While it provided a haven to religious sects regarded as heretical by the Roman Catholic Church, its Berber inhabitants were subject to oppression and exorbitant taxation by its Byzantine overlords.

A major turning-point in the country’s history occurred in the seventh century, when the Arab-Muslim conquerors moved from Egypt towards the North African coast and founded the city of Qayrawān, which became a centre of a robust emirate dominating the local Berber population while keeping Byzantium and Europe at bay. Tunisia’s history and Muslim-Arab character can be traced to that time, so it is both convenient and logical to begin the study here.

Known by the name Ifrīqiya, the area of modern-day Tunisia continued to attract numerous merchants, conquerors and Crusaders. It became prey to the ambitions of the various polities that emerged in North Africa and it attracted conquerors from east and west. Both the Umāyyad and the ‘Abbāsid caliphates exerted considerable efforts to keep the country in their orbit. Seeking to dominate the Mediterranean, neither the Umāyyad caliphs of Muslim Spain, nor the feudal monarchs of Europe, could afford to ignore the advantages that control over that country provided. Likewise, the Berber dynasties of the Almoravids and the Almohads, which conquered large areas in North Africa in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, sought to include Ifrīqiya in their domains. Strongholds on the Tunisian coast enabled the European countries and the city-states of the Italian Peninsula to gain control not only over lucrative trading posts on the country’s shores, but also of strategic positions from which they could suppress piracy, which was endemic in that region.

For a while it seemed as if the country would be spared by the Crusaders who made their way to the Holy Land to wrest it from Muslim domination; however, the idea of a crusade against the emirate remained alive and well in the mind of popes and kings, some of whom aspired to convert its Muslim sovereigns to Christianity. In 1270, Tunisia was the object of a crusade conceived by the king of France, Louis IX, whose death during that campaign turned him into a hero and martyr of mythical proportion. Foreign intervention persisted under the Hafsid dynasty, which ruled the emirate between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries and brought it to a new level of economic and intellectual greatness. European involvement intensified during the Renaissance and the Reformation, which opened new vistas to the Europeans, and the rise of the Ottoman and Habsburg empires brought the competition over Tunis to new heights.

By the sixteenth century, the Habsburgs and Ottomans intensified their efforts to bring the country under control and, after a long period of turmoil and mayhem, the country fell to the Ottomans, who ushered in a new period in the country’s history. Under the Ottoman Empire the emirate achieved greater autonomy, but foreign influence increased and European countries continued to be attracted by the strategic and commercial advantages that presence on its location provided. In the eighteenth century, the European powers became involved in a stiff competition to dominate the country. Motivated by the mercantilist idea that control over distant territories could be beneficial to their economies, they sought commercial posts in the Mediterranean basin. The Regency of Tunis was to pay the price of this unbridled competition. France intensified its economic penetration and thereby prompted England, Holland and other European countries to interfere in the Regency’s affairs. Intense competition among the great powers ensued and the French penetration proved to be a prelude to the establishment of a protectorate over the country, which lasted over 80 years, it not being until 1956 that Tunisia achieved its independence.

Numerous challenges faced the newly established republic. Under its founder and president, Habīb Bourguiba, the ruling socialist Destour Party transformed the country, its economy and its political institutions. One of the most outstanding features in the history of modern Tunisia is that despite its small size and the paucity of its natural resources it began playing an important role in the history of the Maghreb and the Middle East in general. Bourguiba’s rise to power transformed the country and placed it in a unique position as an ‘honest broker’ in the regional disputes during the age of pan-Arabism. So profound was the transformation of the country under the dominating Destour Party that its institutions and ideologies remained basically unaltered and Tunisia turned into one of the most developed countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

The purpose of this study is to provide the English reader with one volume recounting the story of this remarkable country from the seventh century to the fall of Ben ‘Ali’s regime in 2011, which provides a logical point to end this study. Tunisia is one of the states of North Africa that attracted little attention among scholars in the English-speaking world. Undoubtedly, superb studies had been written by Arab, European and America scholars on all periods of Tunisia’s history and some of them are mentioned in this study. The Islamic period, which extends from the Arab conquest of the seventh century to the Ottoman conquest of the late sixteenth century, has been explored by outstanding scholars such as Mohamed Talbi, Hicham Djaīt, Farhat Dachraoui, Abdelmajid Douib, M’hamed M’rabet, Robert Brunschvig, Jamil M. Abun Nasser and others. Among the historians who explored the history of Tunisia under the Muradite dynasty (late sixteenth through to the early eighteenth centuries) are Abdelkader Masmoudi, Paul Sebag, Mahmoud Boudali, Nicholas Bérneger and Asma Moala. The early Husseini period (1705–1830) was dealt with in great detail in studies written by historians such as E. Guellouz, El Mokhtar Bey and Mohammed Seghir Ben Youssef. Likewise, the period of reform, which preceded the French Protectorate (1830–1881) was dealt with extensively in numerous works, the most important of which were written by Mongi Smida, Ahmad ‘Abd al-Salām, Ahmed Jdey and B. Slama, while the history of Tunisia under the French Protectorate (1881–1956) was explored thoroughly by historians such as Jean Ganiage, Carmel Sammut, Daniel Rivet and Charles-Andrè Julien. Among those who explored the political and social developments in Tunisia during the interwar period (1914–1939) were Mansour Moala, Bechir Tlili, Khaled Sahli, Mohamed Salah Lejri and Eli Cohen-Hadria. Numerous historians and political scientists covered the political, social and economic developments in Tunisia between the Second World War and the country’s independence in 1956. These include Jean-François Martin, Jacques Valette, Paul-Marie de La Gorce and others. Likewise, numerous studies were written about modern Tunisia. The most famous among these were written by Kenneth J. Perkins, Andrew Borowiec, Georgie Anne Geyer, and Emma C. Murphy, to name but some. This impressive gallery of historians and commentators is by no means complete, and it is not the author’s intension to provide here a thorough analysis of Tunisia’s historiography.

Undoubtedly, the research done by these individuals provides valuable material to the student; however, the lack of a comprehensive study on the history of Tunisia since the Arab conquest is quite surprising. The purpose of this study is not to provide an alternative interpretation of Tunisia’s history, nor to refute conclusions of eminent historians who have written on this subject, but to offer a comprehensive book in the English language, which is currently lacking.

While this is not the place to give a thorough analysis of Tunisia’s historiography the author hopes that a few references will help guide the reader who seeks to explore the subject further. Apart from the authors mentioned above it would be beneficial for the keen student to become familiar with some of the bibliographical material available in several depositories, both in Tunisia and overseas. Sources on the history of Tunisia are available but they are mainly in Arabic and French. For the twelve centuries that preceded the French Protectorate the sources are mostly in Arabic. A valuable guide to the scholar and the student seeking to explore Tunisia’s history is the essay ‘Thirty Years of Research on the Medieval Maghreb (Seventh to Sixteenth Centuries)’ by Mounira Chapoutot-Remadi (http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/remadi.pdf). In this indispensable essay the author identifies a rich tapestry of sources accessible to the historian. A major source of information she mentions is the Bibiographie Nationale Tunisienne, established in 1970. This is in addition to numerous bibliographies written both in Arabic and French that provide information about major figures in Tunisian history such as Ibn Khāldūn and Ibn Hani’ al-Andalūsi, and the events that took place during their time. Other useful works mentioned in the essay are Catalogue de la bibiothèque: Occident musulman (3 vols, Casablanca: King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud Foundation for Islamic Studies and Humanities, 1987); Inventaire général des bibliographies nationales retrospectives, ed. Marcelle Beaudiquez (Munich: K. G. Saur, 1986); and Dictionaire des auteurs maghrébins de la langue française, by Jean Déjeux (Paris: Karthala, 1984).

Other works mentioned by Chapoutot-Remadi deal more specifically with Tunisia. These are: Jean Fontaine, Fihris ta’rīkh al-mu’allifat at-tunisiyya [with Arabic text by Hammadi Sammud] (Tunis: Bayt al-Hikma, 1986); and Mohamed Yalouli, Le Recherches sur la Tunisie médiévale au cours des trentes dernières anées (1956–1986), in IBLA (Institut des Belles Letters Arabes), No. 159 (1986), pp. 61–72. In addition to general works on the medieval Muslim world mentioned in the essay one should add the work by Pessah Shinar, Maghrébin contemporain: Essai de bibliographie sélective et annotée sur l’Islam. Maroc, Algérie, Tunisie, Libye (1830–1978) (Paris: CNRS, 1983).

Published by the Faculté de Lettres et Sciences Humaines, the collection of essays contained in Cahier de Tunisie, written in Arabic and Western languages, throws light on many aspects of Tunisian history. This organization has also published the Arabic periodical Al-Hawliyyat, which contains some material on Tunisian history. Other periodicals containing historical articles on Tunisian history are the Revue de l’Institut des belles letters arabes, the Revue tunisienne des sciences socials, Actes de Congrès d’Histoire et de Civilization de Maghreb, Al-Hidaya, and al-Fikr.

Apart from the publications of the University of Tunis there are professional organizations that publish material on Tunisian history, such as the Association d’Histoire et d’Archéologie and the Société Tunisienne des Historiens Universitaires (STHU). The two most famous institutions providing access to material on Tunisia are the Centre de Documentation Tunisie Maghreb (CDTM) and the Centre d’Etudes Maghrébines a Tunis (CEMAT). In addition, there are research institutions in France and other European countries that provide material for the historian. Documents of Tunisia’s history during the Protectorate period are available at the Centre d’Archives d’Outre-Mer in Aix-en-Provence, France.

This by no means is a comprehensive list of all sources; however, a perusal of the works by the scholars mentioned in this book can give the researcher ample material for further research. This study is based on the material obtained in some of the institutions mentioned above, and uses books and articles written by some of these historians in an attempt to provide a comprehensive study of a country whose important role in the history of the Middle East and North Africa cannot be overemphasized. The reader ought to be advised that all quotes from non-English sources are the author’s own translation.

I wish to express my gratitude to all those individuals whose assistance made this study possible. First and foremost, I would like to thank the staff members of the research institutes in Tunis where much of the material for this book was collected. Special thanks to the Centre Maghrébines a Tunis (CEMAT) and especially to its former director Dr James A. Miller, who facilitated my access to libraries and the research institutes of that country. I also wish to thank the staff members of the National Archives of Tunisia, the Centre de Documentation Tunisie-Maghreb (CDTM) and the Institut de Belles Lettres Arabes (IBLA) for providing me with periodicals and other written materials and allowing me to obtain copies.

Special gratitude is due to the staff at the Department of Near Eastern Studies of Princeton University, to the department chair, Professor Sūkrū Hanioğlu, and especially to Ms Kathleen O’Neal for allowing me to use the rich collection at the Firestone Library during my sabbatical semester in the spring of 2007. I would also like to express my gratitude to the staff members of the following archives and libraries in which my research and writing of this: the Centre d’Archives d’Outre-Mer in Aix-en-Provence and the National Archive in London. Special thanks to the staff members of the Sorbonne library at the University of Paris, and especially to Ms Agnès Rogeret for allowing me to use resources. This study would not have been possible without occasional grants from the Department of History and the Dean of Faculty at the United States Air Force Academy. And last but not the least, I would like to thank my family for the support that I enjoyed while being engaged in this project.

1

The Arab Conquest and Dominion of Ifrīqiya

When the Arab armies invaded Ifr ī qiya in the seventh century the country had fallen in ruins. What astonished historians was not only the destructive nature of the invasion but also the profound cultural impact that it left on the local population. Commenting on the consequences of the Arab conquest, Emile-Félix Gautier writes: ‘An immense revolution. The country broke through a totally impregnable barrier, separating the West from the Orient. Compared to a similar leap into the unknown, our French and Russian revolutions appear measly.’ ¹ Arab historians remember the conquest either due to national pride or because of the profound religious experience of some of Ifrīqiya’s conquerors. Commenting on the exploits of the celebrated conqueror of North Africa, Mūsā Ibn Nusayr, the eleventh-century Arab historian Abū Bakr al-Mālīkī tells us: ‘Every time he passed in front of an old ruin or an ancient city [he was accustomed to] dismounting his horse, prostrating himself twice on the earth, then passing through the sites, while meditating on the monuments and the ruins, and weeping profusely before his departure.’ ²

Sweeping through North Africa the Arab conquerors had encountered heroic Berber resistance. Two main figures were involved in the resistance: a tribal chief named Kasīla (Kusayla) Ibn Lamzam, and a woman known by the name al-Kāhina (the Prophetess or Priestess) who became as famous as the legendary Arab figures ‘Uqbah Ibn Nāfi’ and Hasān Ibn al-Nu’mān, who met them at the battlefield.³ Berbers and Arabs, as Mohamed Talbi reminds us, opposed each other but occasionally cooperated.⁴ The collaboration between the Berbers and their conquerors proved to be beneficial to the subsequent Arab conquest of Spain. In 711, Berbers fought alongside the Arab general Tāriq Ibn Ziyād, who crossed the strait of Gibraltar which bears his name and conquered Andalusia in modern-day Spain. Yet despite all vicissitudes, a profound fusion of Arab and Berber cultures took place.

The area known as Ifrīqiya, which later emerged as the state of Tunisia, began to acquire a unique character more than a century after the initial Arab conquest and it was not until the rise of the Aghlabid dynasty in 800 that it obtained an autonomous status. Under the Fatimids, which overthrew the Aghlabid dynasty in 909, Ifrīqiya expanded both eastward and westward. The country was later occupied by the Zirids (909–1171) and the Hafsids (1229–1574), both of which were dynasties of Berber origin. The Berber dynasties became the defenders of Islam and the Arabic language and their courts had all the trappings of Arab civilization, whose purity they sought to preserve. A brilliant Arab-Muslim civilization flourished in this land and Qayrawān, the city founded by ‘Uqbah in 674, experienced a remarkable cultural renaissance. Qayrawān survived until the devastating Hilāli invasions of the eleventh century, when the centre of Arab civilization in North Africa moved southward to Mahdiyya.

The Impact of the Arab Conquest

Unlike the Byzantine conquest, which preceded it a century earlier, the Arab conquest had a profound impact on Ifrīqiya. Soon after the conquest the country was integrated into the Umāyyad caliphate with its capital in Damascus. The Arab conquest of Ifrīqiya was not a result of a preconceived plan, emanating from Damascus. It was conceived by the new Arab masters of Egypt, who took the initiative and conquered land further west.⁵ After entering Alexandria triumphantly in September 642, general ‘Amr Ibn al-‘As invaded Cyrenaica in 642 or 643, and conquered the Byzantine settlements. He then moved further west towards Tripoli, which he conquered before returning to Egypt in 645. Meanwhile ‘Uqbah, who was one of his most distinguished commanders, moved southward, reaching the Zawīla oasis. After conquering the last Byzantine strongholds the Arabs continued to consolidate their hold on Egypt and the Libyan coast and it was not until 647 that their first raid into middle Ifrīqiya took place, indicating that the move towards that province was a mere by-product of the conquest of Egypt and that there was no continuity in the Arab advance towards the Byzantine possessions of the western Mediterranean. The expedition to Ifrīqiya was organized by ‘Abdallāh Ibn Abi Sarh and most of the means for the enterprise were supplied by Egypt. The Arab armies were accompanied by numerous Bedouin elements who originated from the outskirts of Medina. Included in these armies were the tribes of Juhayna, Muzuyna, Sulāym and, especially, the Aslam.

A good number of the sons of the Prophet’s companions took part in the conquest. The sources tell us that Caliph ‘Uthmān gathered the first participants in camp Gurf, close to Medina. Although the conquest of Ifrīqiya was a by-product of the conquest of Egypt the province was a well-defined administrative unit. Its religious character as an area controlled by the exarch Gregory of Carthage, who led a separatist movement that did not subscribe to the religious policy of the Byzantine imperial government, reinforced its uniqueness. The invasion of Ifrīqiya was facilitated by the discontent of its inhabitants with Byzantine rule. No description more aptly describes the distress that Ifrīqiya’s inhabitants experienced prior to the Arab conquest than that of the eminent nineteenth-century historian Edward Gibbon. He writes:

The Western conquests of the Saracens were suspended nearly twenty years, till their dissensions were composed by the establishment of the house of Ommiyah; and the caliph Moawiyah was invited by the cries of the Africans themselves. The successors of Heraclius had been informed of the tribute which they had been compelled to stipulate with the Arabs; but instead of being moved to pity and relieve their distress, they imposed, as an equivalent or a fine, a second tribute of similar amount. The ears of the Byzantine ministers were shut against the complaints of their poverty and ruin; their despair was reduced to prefer the dominion of a single master; and the extortions of the patriarch of Carthage, who was invested with civil and military power, provoked the sectaries, and even the Catholics, of the Roman province, to abjure the religion as well as the authority of their tyrants.⁶

Yet, despite their distress, Ifrīqiya’s Berbers were reluctant to change one master for another. They opposed the Arab invaders and even sought Byzantine aid in doing so. When the Arabs approached Carthage both the Berbers and the Byzantines had come to the realization that Arab victory would be detrimental to their cause. As Will Durant put it:

Realizing that the capture of Carthage would give the Moslems control of the Mediterranean and open road to Spain, the Greek emperor sent troops and a fleet; the Berbers, forgetting for a moment their hatred of Rome, joined in defending the city; and it was not until 698 that Carthage was subdued.⁷

The decisive Battle of Sbeitla (Suffetula), which took place in 647–648, ended with the defeat of the Byzantines and their Berber allies. Gregory was killed and the city was sacked. This battle was the first and last significant encounter that the Arabs had in that region. Subsequently, Byzantine resistance diminished and became subordinate to that of the Berbers. Following their victory in Sbeitla the Arabs continued to push the Byzantines towards the rich oasis of the Djerīd. A truce ensued, the Byzantines agreed to pay the Arabs an indemnity of 2.5 million dinar or 300 talents for their departure, and after 14 months of presence in Ifrīqiya the Arab armies began rolling back to Egypt.

While it was essentially a pillage expedition, the invasion of Ibn Abī Sarh was the first phase of a long conquest. The Arab leaders had a clear vision of their conquest plan and this arrangement, which guaranteed them considerable amounts of booty, left them satisfied for the moment. Soon, however, divisions began to emerge in the Arab camp. The campaign brought to the surface the deep problems in Caliph ‘Uthmān’s camp and exposed the vigorous opposition to his regime. What brought the campaign to an end at that stage was the fact that the Arabs were not ready to maintain an occupation force in that region. Other factors played a role as well: the Arabs had enormous difficulties defeating the Byzantine forces, which defended the region and relied on reinforcements from the Byzantine Empire, and internal squabbles among the Arab leaders compounded the difficulties. Clearly, this was a time when Islam had not yet set its house in order and the struggle over the caliphate tore the Islamic community (umma) asunder. There is little wonder, therefore, that the Arabs abandoned Ifrīqiya for nearly 20 years and that it was not until 661, when Mu’āwiya Ibn Abi Sūfyān emerged as the founder of the Umāyyad caliphate, that they were capable of resuming their conquests in North Africa.

Meanwhile, Ifrīqiya underwent a period of considerable turmoil. The religious policy pursued by the Byzantine emperor Constance II, which was marked by brutal acts against the great theologian Maximus Confessor, alienated many of the country’s Christian inhabitants.⁸ Moreover, the exorbitant taxes levied on the population did not help enhance the emperor’s popularity. The Carthaginian inhabitants rebelled and sought help from the Umāyyad caliph against the Byzantines. This was an opportune moment for the Arabs to resume the conquest of North Africa. In 666, Mu’āwiya Ibn Hudayj, an Arab chief from Egypt and a member of ‘Uthmān’s party, conquered Byzacena in the Al-Qarn region. A Byzantine invasion under Nicephorus’ command in Monastir was repulsed and the city of Galūla in the area of the future site of Qayrawān was captured by ‘Abd al-Mālik Ibn Marwān. Byzacena was occupied and sacked for the second time and, in 667, the Arab armies rolled back to Egypt. Until then the military policy pursued by the caliph towards Ifrīqiya was marked by tardiness and hesitations. There was need for another conqueror with charisma and messianic appeal and it was the legendary ‘Uqbah who assumed that role.

The Initial Berber Resistance

‘Uqbah, who became governor of Ifrīqiya in 670, was an experienced general in his fifties. He commanded the Arab forces in southern Libya and participated in the first raids on Ifrīqiya. A combination of talent and cruelty enabled him to conquer Ifrīqiya after a period of stiff Berber resistance. The Egyptian-born chronicler Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam (d. 871) tells us that when ‘Uqbah arrived in Waddān, in present-day Libya, he conquered the region, captured its king and cut off his ear. When the king asked him: ‘Why have you done this to me, after you have made a covenant of peace with me?’ ‘Uqbah answered: ‘I have done this in order to teach you a lesson, for when you touch your ear, you will remember not to fight the Arabs.’⁹ ‘Uqbah believed that in order to secure effective control over Ifrīqiya it was necessary to establish a garrison town (misr) as the Arabs had done in the eastern provinces of their newly acquired empire. Located several miles inland, Qayrawān seemed to ‘Uqbah more secure than Carthage, which was on the Mediterranean shore and therefore exposed to naval attacks.¹⁰ Al-Mālīkī tells us that ‘Uqbah commanded his followers ‘to build a city that would become the power of Islam until the end of time’. When they proposed that the city be built closer to the coast and that the local residents would staff the adjacent ribāt¹¹ he explained that his objective was to build the city further inland in order to protect it from the sovereign of Constantinople and the depredations of the corsairs. A similar account is provided by Ibn ‘Idhāri al-Marrākushi, who obtained it from Ibrāhīm Ibn al-Qāsim [al-Raqīq].¹² ‘Uqbah is reported by the thirteenth-century geographer Yāqūt al-Hamāwī to have said, ‘I have only chosen this place because it is well away from the sea and the Roman ships cannot reach it and destroy it. It is well inland.’¹³

Al-Hasān Ibn Muhammad al-Wazzān al-Fāssi, also known as Leo Africanus, tells us that ‘Uqbah’s decision to build Qayrawān was motivated by fear that the people of Tunis would betray him by enlisting the support of Sicily against him.¹⁴ One can argue that Ifrīqiya became a distinct unit with ‘Uqbah even though that province (wilāya) was under the jurisdiction of the Egyptian capital Fustāt for quite some time.¹⁵ Yet, despite the fact that Arab garrisons were stationed in areas like Qayrawān, the province had no organized government to speak of.¹⁶ ‘Uqbah introduced a new spirit to the Arab conquest that was marked by determination and desire to spread the faith through a holy war (jihād). Moreover, his objective now was far more ambitious: to extend Arab rule across the entire Maghreb.

The foundation of the Qayrawān misr began in the area of Qammūniyya, which since the first Arab invasion was a favourite camping ground for the Arab armies. It was the place from which the assault on Sbeitla began, and it was there that Ibn Hudayj camped. ‘Uqbah, who led his army towards the camp, found it unsatisfactory and moved to another area that later became the site of Qayrawān. It should be borne in mind that the city was founded at the moment when northern Tunisia escaped the Arab conquest and that the military circumstances of the conquest led to its establishment in 674. ‘Uqbah established the city with a view to eradicating the Roman-Christian tradition and to expanding the borders of the dār al-Islām (Abode of Islam). Taking advantage of the Byzantine weakness, when Caliph Mu’āwiya was occupied with the siege of Constantinople (669–672), ‘Uqbah began raiding the outskirts of Byzacena in coordination with Ibn Hudayj. Both Arab and Christian chroniclers tell us about a great massacre of Christians and other inhabitants of the region. The evidence indicates that ‘Uqbah’s arrival coincided with a definite hardening of the Arab conquest methods, which manifested themselves in the brutality of his men and the clear vision that he had regarding his mission.

The encounter with the Berbers did not come immediately. In 674, Egypt’s governor, Maslama Ibn Muhallab, decided to replace ‘Uqbah with Abū Muhājir Dinār. This man managed to continue ‘Uqbah’s enterprise but he became his deadly enemy. Abū Muhājir’s enmity towards ‘Uqbah had an adverse effect on his reputation in the eyes of Arab historians. Moreover his humble client (mawlā) status tarnished his reputation. Nevertheless, some modern historians have placed him above ‘Uqbah, attributing to him a burning desire to conquer and colonize. He is said to have been the first conqueror to have had a good grip on the middle Maghreb and the first to exercise a skilful policy of Islamization in Ifrīqiya. It appears from the sources that Abū Muhājir was a prudent politician and a loyal Muslim who continued ‘Uqbah’s enterprise. Regrettably, Ta-Qayrawān, which Abū Muhājir built as a rival city to Qayrawān, did not survive. Therefore, posterity remembers him as inferior to ‘Uqbah. Yet despite the differences in their personalities and the methods they used, the two conquerors were inspired by one intention: to establish a solid Arab rule throughout the entire Maghreb. With this aim in mind Abū Muhājir captured Kasīla, chief of the Awrāba Berbers, and the Byzantines were forced to abandon the Cape Bon peninsula to the Arabs. The scarcity of primary sources on that period makes it impossible to assess the impact that Kasīla had on the Arab conquest but al-Hakam’s account Futūh Misr wa-’l-Maghreb wa Akhbaruha (The Conquest of Egypt and the Maghreb and the Account Thereof) tells us that Kasīla played a major role in ‘Uqbah’s defeat and that he relied on the support of the Greek residents of North Africa.¹⁷

‘Uqbah’s Second Campaign

After being nominated governor ‘Uqbah rushed to implement his plan to conquer the entire Maghreb. The Berber resistance was immediate and often supported by the Byzantines but as long as the Arabs limited themselves to the conquest of Tripolitania and Ifrīqiya proper there was no resistance to speak of. The southern tribes of Lawāta, Hawāra and Nafūsa did not rise in rebellion despite the pillage of the Djerīd and the heavy taxes that the conquerors imposed on the Lawāta, a Libyan tribe that suffered plunder by previous conquests. As long as the Arabs confined themselves to areas dominated by the Byzantines the Berbers did not resist. Resistance began when they invaded Numidia and other Berber regions of the west but even then not all Berbers took part in it. Those who resisted the Arab invasion were mainly the Berber inhabitants of the desert fringes and the mountains such as the Aurès and its environs. Ifrīqiya, with its citadels and docile peasant population, remained largely passive.¹⁸

The main Berber resistance to Arab rule came from the highly urbanized Byzantine province of Numidia and not from the tribes of the interior. In his book L’Islamisation de l’Afrique du Nord: Les siècles obscures du Maghreb (The Islamization of North Africa: The Obscure Centuries of the Maghreb) Gautier explained the lack of stiff resistance in these tribal areas, suggesting that the agricultural and urban civilization, which was relatively flourishing in Roman times, had already collapsed. However, a close examination of the Arab sources, especially Tarikh Ifrīqiya wa-‘l-Maghreb (History of Ifrīqiya and the Maghreb), written by the eleventh-century chronicler Ibn al-Raqīq, reveals that the old civilization continued to survive. Numidia appears to have been a country of large Berber tribes led by powerful princes. Undoubtedly, urban and tribal modes of civilization coexisted while the tribal groupings were somewhat more preponderant. It is also possible that there was interaction between them. This pattern fits well with the association between Berbers and Byzantines, which manifested itself first by the Berber resistance in the Aurès at the beginning of the conflict, and then by the constant pressure of the Byzantine forces and tribal elements throughout the resistance period.

There were two resistance movements among the Berbers. The first is known as the Aurasian movement. It originated in the western Aurès and the Branis region of modern-day Algeria, and its followers were sedentary tribes. The second was that of the Butr tribal federation, and its main followers were nomadic and semi-nomadic Berbers. The main resistance came from a central nucleus, dominant among the Berbers: the Awrāba and the Grāwa. These brought in their wake a large number of Berber clans who joined the resistance. The danger to the Arab forces increased considerably whenever a talented leader emerged and united these Berber groups. It was this kind of resistance that ‘Uqbah encountered in 683, in the heart of the Maghreb and probably all the way to the Atlantic seaboard.

Soon after his return ‘Uqbah began operating against his predecessor Abū Muhājir. His troops occupied Qayrawān and took Abū Muhājir prisoner. After putting Zuhayr Ibn Qays al-Balawi in charge of the city ‘Uqbah departed to the west with 5,000 men, along with Abū Muhājir and the Awrāba chief Kasīla, both of whom remained in chains during the entire campaign. Upon his arrival in the Aurès region ‘Uqbah laid siege to Baghaï and Lambese, but his attempts were thwarted by the Byzantines, who intervened and inflicted heavy losses on the Arabs.

‘Uqbah’s difficulties increased considerably upon his arrival in Zāb, a Berber region totally controlled by the Awrāba. The collusion of Byzantines and Berbers, whose common adherence to Christianity helped consolidate their alliance, created a formidable resistance front, which the Arab conqueror found difficult to subdue. ‘Uqbah’s forces were engaged in violent combats at the outskirts of Adana, a Berber city in Zāb, but the attempt to capture it failed. Despite a great massacre, resistance by local mountaineers made it impossible to capture the city. Then ‘Uqbah moved towards the middle Maghreb and encountered stiff resistance in Tahart from both the Berbers and their Byzantine allies. Thereupon, ‘Uqbah camped in Tangiers, where he met Julian The Exarch. After passing through northern Sousse he turned southward and captured a large number of women from among the Masmūda tribes. He did not stop before reaching the Atlantic shore. Legend has it that he entered the ocean with his sword imploring Allāh to witness that he could go no further.¹⁹ Gibbon summarized the episode saying:

The career, though not the zeal, of Akbah was checked by the prospect of a boundless ocean. He spurred his horse into the waves, and, raising his eyes to heaven, exclaimed with the tone of a fanatic, ‘Great God! if my course were not stopped by this sea, I would still go on, to the unknown kingdoms of the West, preaching the unity of thy holy name, and putting to the sword the rebellious nations who worship any other gods than thee.’²⁰

After leaving Tubna his enemies took the opportunity to launch an attack on his exhausted troops, whose number had dwindled significantly in the course of the campaigns. Supported by Byzantine forces the Awrāba Berbers attacked his forces in August 683, at Tahuda, close to the Biskra oasis at the foot of the Aurès Mountains. On his way to Ifrīqiya, ‘Uqbah insulted Kasīla despite the judicious advice of Abū Muhājir. Kasīla asked for Byzantine assistance but had no desire to be part of an alliance that would subject him to the emperor’s control. Thereupon, he escaped, regrouped his forces and, without Byzantine help, ambushed ‘Uqbah near Tahūda where both ‘Uqbah and Abū Muhājir, who insisted on remaining in chains, died in the battle.

The disaster in Tahuda was a grave setback for the Arabs. It also revealed that the collaboration between the Berbers and Byzantines was quite effective. Furthermore, the campaign at Tahuda was the first important act of Berber resistance. Nevertheless, the martyrdom of ‘Uqbah, who died in the attack on Tahuda with his men and probably with Abū Muhājir as well, played an important role in the Islamization of North Africa because it created the legend of Sidi ‘Uqbah and gave Islam a heroic and sanctified image. ‘Uqbah became a legend, a hero and a brave soldier of Islam. Above all, he appears to have been a brilliant soldier and conqueror rather than a gifted administrator. He was brutal, impatient, somewhat primitive, vindictive and scornful of his enemies. He lacked the flexibility and forbearance of a noble member of the Quraysh tribe, yet he had a high degree of piety and daring that won him the admiration of his men.

Berber Resistance and Suppression

The disaster at Tahuda resulted in the eviction of the Arabs from Qayrawān. Arab sources mention a conflict between Hanās as-San’āni and Zuhayr Ibn Qays. The first took part in the retreat and the other in the suppression of the revolt. This might lead one to assume that there was considerable disarray among the Arab conquerors who conducted total war and tended to protect their gains with all the manpower and resources at their disposal, but in 683 the rebellion of ‘Abdallāh Ibn Zubayr in Mecca tore the Islamic community apart and slowed down the expansion process.²¹ Consequently, the Arabs chose to return east after leaving some of their men and new converts in Qayrawān. Kasīla, who sought to benefit from the Arab retreat, advanced towards Qayrawān where he gave amnesty (amān) to the Muslims who remained behind, hoping that by doing so he would attract them to his cause, or at least neutralize them. Whether or not he aspired to be the ruling prince of Qayrawān, Ifrīqiya or the entire Maghreb will continue to be debated. It is likely that his victory over ‘Uqbah earned him the sympathy, if not the enthusiastic support, of the Berber masses. Undoubtedly, he managed to establish a vast confederation of many regions, all of which supported his Awrāba tribe, but he remained a tribal chief because the conditions among the diverse Berber tribes at that time were such that he was in no position to establish a coherent and well-structured state. He conquered no more than part of Ifrīqiya, which was later reconquered by the Arabs. The Berbers remained diverse groups, and the divisions among them between pro-Arabs and anti-Arabs kept them weak, compelling Kasīla to rely on Byzantine aid.

By 675, Constantinople was besieged by the Arabs and the Byzantines were compelled to loosen their control over the Berbers of North Africa. At the same time, however, the massacre at Tahuda encouraged the Byzantines to regain their losses in that region. They invaded Byzacena and Numidia and established their suzerainty over Kasīla’s ‘empire’. Meanwhile, the Arabs were partially successful in setting their house in order. Egypt was eventually brought under Umāyyad control after Ibn Zubayr’s party was defeated. In Damascus the new Umāyyad caliph ‘Abd al-Mālik nominated his brother ‘Abd al-‘Azīz as governor of Egypt. Now the Arabs were again in a position to mount another assault on Ifrīqiya and they were not about to let this opportunity slip by. An Arab expedition under Zuhayr Ibn Qays moved towards Qayrawān in 689. It camped for three days at the city’s outskirts and then engaged the Berbers in a battle at Mems. The assault proved to be an astounding success for the Arabs. Kasīla was killed and his Berber followers fled towards the Aurès and the west. The powerful confederation of Berbers that had assembled around Kasīla had quickly disintegrated.

One of the main reasons for this defeat was that the Berber tribes failed to create a united front. The Butr tribes of the Aurès did not move to defend Kasīla, while the southern tribes supported the Arab cause. The scale and ferocity of the Arab offensive discouraged the Berbers and caused many of them to desert. Arab fear that the Byzantines would come to rescue the Berber forces did not materialize but the Byzantines embarked on an invasion of their own. In 691, a Byzantine fleet landed in Barqa and prevailed over the Arab garrison. An Arab force led by Zuhayr Ibn Qays arrived to dislodge the Byzantines from their newly acquired stronghold but the attempt failed and Zuhayr himself was killed in action. Zuhayr’s death and the fall of Barqa were inextricably tied to events in the east. In 690, Caliph ‘Abd al-Mālik was confronted with fierce resistance led by Mus’ab Ibn al-Zubayr, which compelled him to maintain the bulk of his forces in Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia, so he could hardly afford to send an expedition to Ifrīqiya at that critical moment. On the contrary, he had to recall his troops from Barqa, and by 691 most had made their way to Egypt and Syria. Lacking adequate manpower to defend it, Barqa fell to the Byzantines and Zuhayr died.

It was only after 693, when the Zubayrite movement lost its potency, that the Arabs were able to resume the offensive under the Marwānid banner. In 695, ‘Abd al-Mālik decided to solve Ifrīqiya’s problem once and for all. He nominated Hasān Ibn al-Nu’mān al-Ghassāni (696–703) to lead another expedition. Supported by the Egyptian treasury, al-Nu’mān led 40,000 men into Ifrīqiya. This was the most powerful Arab army to penetrate that province until then. He subsequently moved towards Carthage, capital of the exarchate of Africa, and laid siege to it. The Byzantines who occupied the city, including top administrators and prominent members of the aristocracy, fled to Sicily and Spain. Those who remained took refuge in the suburbs but after al-Nu’mān left they returned to the city and attempted to refortify it. Al-Nu’mān returned, retook the city and destroyed its fortifications.

Supported by the Berbers the remnants of the Byzantine army continued the combat in the Satfura region on the Mateur plain and around Bizerte but al-Nu’mān managed to disperse them. They retreated to Béja and their Berber allies fled and found refuge at Bône. Soon, however, a new leader appeared among the Berbers whose objective was not only to fight the Arabs but also to free his people from Byzantine domination. The new leader was al-Kāhina, daughter of Tabita, son of Tifān. Berber genealogists noted that she was a widow of the king of the Gerāwa, a Butr tribe from the eastern Aurès. Talbi describes her in the following words: ‘[She] was, without a doubt, a fearsome woman, half queen, half sorceress, with dark skin, a mass of hair and huge eyes; according to the Arab chronicles, when she was angry … her eyes would turn red and her hair would stand on end.’²²

Al-Kāhina’s resistance was far more vigorous than that of Kasīla and she represented a movement that was more intrinsically Berber. The accounts regarding the Kahīna vary. According to one account Kasīla was the son of al-Kāhina’s, whose Arabic name was a distortion of the proper name Kahyā or Dahyā.²³ According to Michael Brett the argument that she was Jewish cannot be substantiated and if the name Kāhina is indeed a distortion then she might have been a man. The earliest source about al-Kāhina is the Riyād al-Nufūs by al-Mālīkī, which suggests that al-Kāhina was a Christian. All sources mention that both Kasīla and al-Kāhina helped maintain the Byzantine tradition until the Arabs prevailed. Ibn ‘Idhāri maintains that Kasīla and al-Kāhina belong to different Berber branches; the former originated from the Barānis and the latter from the Butr, Christian or otherwise.²⁴

Al-Kāhina’s first battles against the Arabs were devastating. From Qayrawān, al-Nu’mān marched towards the Aurès, passing through Theveste (Tebessa), and camped on the river Nini, close to Miskiana or Bordj Meskiana, some 30 kilometres from Baghaï. Al-Kāhina, who came from the Aurès, sacked and destroyed Baghaï and then advanced towards the Arab army. The battle was a disaster for the Arabs. The Berber queen pursued the Arab armies to the gates of Gabès, forcing al-Nu’mān to withdrew to the east (696–697). A large number of prisoners were captured, among whom were 80 chiefs of noble Arab blood. It is said that al-Kāhina treated them decently and adopted one of them, Halid Ibn al-Absi, as her son.²⁵ Defeated, al-Nu’mān retreated to Barqa where he built palaces and fortifications that became known as Qusur Hasān. He remained isolated there for nearly three years (696–699) and Ifrīqiya seemed to have escaped his control. This state of affairs provided an opportunity for the Byzantines to regroup and consolidate their positions. In 697, the Byzantines recaptured Carthage and refortified it along with other fortresses that they captured in the region.

What al-Kāhina did during that period remains a mystery. The eminent Tunisian historian and philosopher Abū Zayd ‘Abd al-Rahmān Ibn Muhammad Ibn Khāldūn al-Hadrāmi (d. 1406) tells us that she embarked on a scorched-earth policy, which left a large area – from Tripoli to Tangiers – in ruins. This statement, however, is undoubtedly exaggerated.²⁶ Al-Nu’mān thought that the moment was opportune to return to Ifrīqiya under the pretext of being a restorer of order and a saviour. In 699, he entered Gabès, Gafsa and Qastīliya without combat and then went south to lay siege to Carthage. The city fell and the defenders sought refuge in the citadels, but these fell into al-Nu’mān’s hands one after another after the Byzantine aristocracy fled to Spain and the Mediterranean islands. In 700, al-Kāhina and her followers engaged in another battle against the Arabs but this time her troops suffered a crushing defeat and rushed to ask for al-Nu’mān’s amnesty. He acquiesced, on the proviso that the Berber tribes provided hostages to form two auxiliary corps of 6,000 men commanded by al-Kāhina’s sons. Integrated into the Arab armies, these Berbers later took part in the Arab conquest of the rest of the Maghreb and then joined the army of Tāriq Ibn Ziyād, which crossed the Strait of Gibraltar in 711 and conquered Andalusia.

After more than 50 years of struggle Ifrīqiya, Byzacena and Numidia came under Arab domination. A few pockets of resistance remained following al-Nu’mān’s departure in 703, but these were crushed by the brutality of the new governor, Mūsā Ibn Nusayr, who captured Zaghwān and cruelly subjected the population of Sigum. Mauritania’s population was subdued rapidly and the entire territory of Ifrīqiya was pacified. It should be borne in mind, however, that the conquest of Ifrīqiya was accomplished primarily by al-Nu’mān. The conquest was accompanied by pillage and bloodshed and those who resisted paid dearly for doing so. Al-Nu’mān returned to the east with precious stones, horses and slaves. The cupidity of Ibn Nusayr and the Marwānids who had supported him had further depleted Ifrīqiya.²⁷ The conquest of Ifrīqiya by the Arabs left much destruction but it paved the way for a new and robust Arab civilization that emerged in that province.

Administering Ifrīqiya

The real architect of the Arab conquest of Ifrīqiya was Ibn Nu’mān, and his successor, Ibn Nusayr, completed his achievements. In 705, the conquest of Ifrīqiya came to an end and a new phase of reconstruction began. Ifrīqiya became an Egyptian dependency ruled by a governor (wāli) sent from Fustāt. The governor of Egypt retained the right to send forces in order conquer Ifrīqiya and to provide it with subsidies. Thus Ibn Nusayr came under the control of Egypt’s governor and Caliph ‘Abd al-Mālik’s half-brother ‘Abd al-Azīz Ibn Marwān (685–705). After ‘Abd al-‘Azīz disappeared, however, Ibn Nusayr made direct contact with the new caliph of Damascus, Walīd I (705–715) and thereby prompted ‘Abdallāh, son of ‘Abd al-Mālik and Fustāt’s new governor, to protest.²⁸ This is how Ifrīqiya came to be placed under direct control of the caliphate in Damascus and became a mature province (wilāya) with rights and privileges equal to all other provinces of the Umāyyad caliphate. Moreover, the province – which included Tunisia, Tripolitania and the Zāb – expanded to include the Maghreb and Andalusia. Thus Ifrīqiya turned into a grand wilāya with Qayrawān as its capital and headquarters; it began disintegrating, however, when Khārijite kingdoms were founded on its periphery. These kingdoms were Baraghwāta founded in 742, Sijilmasa in 758, and Tahart in 778. By 747, Andalusia had escaped from Qayrawān’s grip and by 789 the Idrīsids had founded the Moroccan kingdom in the western Maghreb, leaving Ifrīqiya smaller than it had been previously.

As a representative of the caliph, Ifrīqiya’s wāli held all the necessary positions to make his rule absolute. He commanded the army and was head of the bureaucracy and justice system. Unlike the situation in Ifrīqiya during the Byzantine period or in Muslim Egypt, there was no clear distinction between the military and the political authority on the one hand and the administrative and fiscal on the other.

The wāli resided in Qayrawān’s gubernatorial palace (qasr al-Imāra), which was situated in the east side of the Grand Mosque. He had a personal guard whose members were recruited from among the Berbers or the clients (mawāli) of the Arab conquerors. The pomp that surrounded the former exarchs was lacking here and the period was still marked by primitive Arab simplicity. Ifrīqiya had 22 governors, the most illustrious of whom were Mūsā Ibn Nusayr (703–715), Hanzala Ibn Safwān (742–747), ‘Abd al-Rahmān Ibn Habīb (747–755) and, above all, the Muhallabite Yazīd Ibn Hātim (772–787), whose rule was marked by peace, tranquillity and reconstruction.

During the Umāyyad period Ifrīqiya’s governors came from a humble social rank but that changed during the ‘Abbāsid period. The Muhallabites, who assumed that position in Qayrawān for 27 years (768–795), came from prominent families. The same can be said about Ibn al-Ash’āth (762–763) and Hartama Ibn A’yān (796–797) but whatever the social origin of these governors was, they were officials with considerable experience in the eastern provinces, which proves that Ifrīqiya was considered one of the most valuable provinces in the Arab empire. Rarely did an Arab from Ifrīqiya become a governor. Ismā’īl Ibn Muhājir (719–720) was an exception, and if the Fihrids managed to obtain that post for more than ten years (747–758) and to found a powerful dynasty, it was primarily because they were usurpers who managed to take advantage of the general crisis in the Arab empire. Their attempt to establish a genuine autonomy, however, ended in dismal failure and it was not until 50 years later that another effective governor, Ibrāhīm Ibn Aghlab, came to power.

The Arab army (jūnd) of Ifrīqiya consisted mainly of Egyptian soldiers. Under al-Nu’mān and Ibn Nusayr the ranks were opened to Berbers, who served in auxiliary units, but the ethnic structure and size of the army changed drastically under the ‘Abbāsids. In 762, 40,000 men accompanied Ibn al-Ash’āth to Ifrīqiya, and 60,000 came with Ibn Hātim in 772. These new recruits included a large number of Arabs but most of them were natives of the eastern province of Khurasān. The old Umāyyad army was probably demobilized and settled in the north and northeastern parts of the country, while the new army became more professional and engaged in suppressing rebellions. Soldiers were paid according to the task they performed; 1,000 dirham for a cavalryman and 500 for an infantry soldier. The officer corps was divided into commissioned and non-commissioned officers. The sub-governors of the districts were often in charge of local detachments. The army had commanders for its various units, which were recruited from the local aristocracy of the Umāyyad period. It was composed of Arabs native to Ifrīqiya and commanders who, usually, had gained their experience in the east.

The army’s main function was to suppress local rebellions but it also took part in the invasions of Sicily and Sardinia, in addition to carrying out local raids (razzia) whose purpose was to obtain booty and capture slaves. In addition, Ifrīqiya maintained a navy that controlled the Mediterranean. Because of its strategic location and the size of its garrison, Qayrawān maintained its importance at least until the Kharijite revolts of 740–741. Soon, however, Tunis began rivalling Qayrawān as an important military centre. Later, Zāb exploited the rivalry between Qayrawān and Tunis and developed into an important military centre. The Arabs simplified the Byzantine military system. They placed garrisons in ancient fortresses such as Baghaï, Béja and Gabès. The military districts coincided with the civil ones and the heads of the districts were also their military commanders. The rise of new cities such as Qayrawān and Tunis compensated for the decline of other military centres such as Sbeitla, Theveste and Carthage, and provided Ifrīqiya with a significant military potential.

According to Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam, it was al-Nu’mān who formed Ifrīqiya’s administrative system. The administrative organization of the country was similar to that of other Muslim provinces. The Arab administration consisted of three departments; the department of the army (diwān al-jūnd), the department of taxation (diwān al-kharrāj), and the department of dispatches (diwān al-rasā’il). In addition, there were bureaus that dealt with more specific matters such as the department of the post (diwān al-barīd), which also served as a bureau of information; the house of money (dar al-darb); the bureau of food distribution (dār-al-rizq); and the public treasury (bayt al-māl). A significant portion of the taxes collected were given to the Arab army and the administration. The rest, which according to Arab historian Muhammad bin ‘Abdus al-Jahshiyāri (d. 942) had fallen to 13 million dirham during Harūn al-Rāshīd’s time, went to the treasury of the caliph in Baghdad.²⁹

The descendants of the Byzantines, which included peasants, Romanized residents and Berbers who continued to adhere to the Christian faith, were treated as Peoples of the Book (dhimmis), and were subject to the payment of both poll (jizya) and land (kharrāj) taxes. Most Berbers who lived in tribes converted to Islam early enough and were expected to pay no more than the tithe (‘ushr) on agricultural products and alms (zakkāt) on herds. There was also a tax called fifth (takhmīs), which was collected sporadically in the Rif.

In the beginning, the Arab central administration relied on Byzantine methods and the Latin language was widely used in the tax department. The Arabic language penetrated gradually and the Arabization of the central administration intensified by the first third of the eighth century. By the year 719, the Arab dinar replaced the old Byzantine denarius. The governor, Ismā’īl Ibn Abū Muhājir, embarked on an accelerated Arabization process but the regional administration was slower to adopt the Arabic language. Of all the regions of the Maghreb it was Ifrīqiya with its adjoining areas of Tripolitania and Numidia that was well administered. Though they were subordinates of the governor of Qayrawān, the local governors (‘ummāl) of Zāb and Tripolitania enjoyed wide-ranging military and civil powers, which they had inexorably accumulated since the eruption of the Kharijite revolts. The Tunisian territory was divided into districts controlled by sub-governors, who exercised considerable control, especially in the fiscal area.

At first, the justice system was highly centralized but during the second half of the eighth century it began decentralizing. Nevertheless, the governor continued to exercise control, aided as necessary by the police corps (shūrtā) and the criminal justice system. The judge (qādi) exercised functions pertaining both to secular and religious justice. Although the caliph sometimes interfered in the nomination of judges, during both the Umāyyad and ‘Abbāsid eras, it was generally the governor (wāli) who appointed them. Despite the fact that the authority of the judge was anchored in the Islamic judicial tradition, he was not protected from the authority and intervention of the governor. Nevertheless, the qādi of Qayrawān had considerable powers already at that period. Some of these judges, such as Habīb Ibn Abū Kurayb, played an important role in the life of the Muslim community by virtue of the fact that they had considerable moral authority.³⁰ The powers of the qādi continued to increase under the Aghlabids. The organizational system in Ifrīqiya was similar to that of the other provinces of the caliphate but was adapted to local conditions.

Unlike the ancient Mauritanias, Ifrīqiya became a virtual centre of the Arab administration. This was a tribute to the Arab conquerors and the tradition of the east; as Hicham Djaīt put it: ‘In this sense, the remarkable and tenacious effort of the new conquerors prolonged the old traditions, put pressure on them and reinforced them to make Ifrīqiya a geographical entity profoundly penetrated by the action and the influence of the east.’³¹

The idea that the Arab conquest of Ifrīqiya brought an economic decline in its wake cannot be substantiated. On the contrary, archaeological evidence suggests that despite the dislocation and the disturbances caused by the conquest, economic activity continued unabated in many areas. Ifrīqiya’s economy experienced serious upheavals but the governors’ (wullāt) period ushered in a period of economic recovery. Agriculture remained the backbone of the economy. The northern plains remained regions of cereal growing and cattle rearing. Qayrawān and certain zones of Byzacena and Numidia made a significant contribution to these kinds of agricultural activities. Byzacena was an area of irrigated land or dry arboriculture, primarily of olive groves. The Gammūda region had various fruit trees and the oasis of Qastīliya had an abundance of palm trees and vegetables. Overall, little had changed with the coming of the Arabs and there is no indication of either significant economic progress or serious decline. In the industrial sector, Ifrīqiya experienced a period of relative prosperity during the period of the Umāyyad governors. The rich mines, which had been neglected in Roman and Byzantine times, were now exploited, particularly for the iron, silver and lead of Majjāna.

In 702, al-Nu’mān created a maritime arsenal, in which he employed Copts from Egypt. There was little increase in carpet manufacturing but the production of fine linen and other material increased considerably. Commerce expanded considerably due to increased agricultural production and the security of the trade routes. Most of the important cities maintained close commercial contacts with the rural areas that surrounded them. Béja became a grain centre, while Tozeur and Gabès became dategrowing centres. By the eighth century there was a big market (souq) in Tunis, close to the Al-Zaitūna university-mosque, and Qayrawān played an important role in regional and local commerce. Bazaars and handicraft centres developed in the first and second centuries after the Arab conquest. The wāli Yazīd Ibn Hātim (772–787) is said to have organized the markets of Ifrīqiya according to various professions of merchants and artisans.

On the whole, commerce did not diminish under the Arab occupation. Henri Pirenne’s argument that ‘The economic equilibrium of antiquity, which had survived the Germanic invasions, collapsed under the invasion of Islam’³² has long been refuted by historians.³³ In fact, the commercial ties with Europe were maintained and numerous products reached Europe and vice versa, through Spain and Sicily. Qayrawān became a big slave market.

Apart from slaves, which they obtained through the client relationships that they formed, the Arabs employed a small number of chattelslaves from sub-Saharan Africa since the eighth century.³⁴ We hear about the large-scale activity of men such as Ismā’īl al-Ansārī, a merchant who used to send large caravans of slaves to the east. The raids on Sicily, which became more frequent by 738, allowed this trade to thrive. A commercial chain of slavery was established by the eighth century, which extended from Verdun to Qayrawān and thence to the east by way of Spain. In addition to slaves there was extensive commerce in grain, oil, carpets, linen, arms and spices, which were consumed by the ruling classes. This traffic was carried out mainly by caravans on land. Departing from Qayrawān, the caravans passed through the Tunisian coastal route, and from Tripolitania they passed through Fustāt on their way to the bazaars of Syria and Iraq. With the caravans came people of different interests, from science to travel and pilgrimage. This commerce turned the Islamic empire into a vast market and intensified the contact between the people of Ifrīqiya and the East.

Social, Economic and Intellectual Changes

Although the Arab conquest brought a new culture to Ifrīqiya, a fusion of many elements, old and new, took place. At the same time, the Arabic language and Muslim high culture accelerated the process of rapprochement among the ethnic groups. Thus Ifrīqiya became a mosaic of numerous ethnic groups. The old population consisted of people of Latin origin, Afāriqa, Berber tribes and Jews. The new elements of Arabs, Persians and oriental clients had a powerful social impact on the country. The number of Arabs who settled in Ifrīqiya could not have been more than 50,000. During the Umāyyad period most of the Arab influx was Egypto-Syrian, but ‘Abbāsid governors such as Ibn al-Ash’āt and Ibn Hātim brought with them Arabs and Persians from Khurasān, in addition to Syrians and Egyptians.

Among the Arab tribes that immigrated to Ifrīqiya with the rise of the ‘Abbāsids were the Banū Tamīm, the northern tribes,